[amanda99]

A lot of folks are saying big ships are outdated. Keep in mind that war is 80% logistics: and if you are going to engage an enemy far away from your landmass (or project power for that matter), you need huge capacity to move materiel to said location, and that normally means ships.

An interesting thing to look at is something called the "Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel": for every gallon that the US delivers to a Forward Operating Base, they spend something like 6-20 gal getting it there.

The point is that you need to move insane amounts of stuff to fight a war effectively. The actual fighting is just the tip of an iceberg of logistics.

[maxglute]

I think fully burden fuel costs greatly skewed by GWOT where a shit load of supplies was brought in via air or land convoys since AFG land locked. Napkin math Vietnam war cost 1/8 of GWOT adjusted to same dollar which is argument for big ship logistics.

But big ships are outdated crowd surmises big ships used to support logistics (including of other big ships) are also not survivable especially against peer power, not irregular forces that can't touch rear. TBH once adversaries can hit logistics tail (or even CONUS), and they increasingly can thanks to proliferation of rocketry/missiles, the backbone that supports US global expeditionary model breaks. And if enough adversaries can threaten that model, it's value drops even against irregular forces with larger power backing.

The point is, for the first time in modern history, the era of US having uncontested/effective ocean logistics during war time, especially vs peer may be closing. And there simply may not be viable alternative to support expeditionary model that relies on heavy tooth-tail ratios. Which isn't to say sea power is over, just value diminished. At some point it maybe not be economical / feasible to fight large wars on other side of world against adversaries fighting in their backyards. And that's something planners need to account for.

[einpoklum]

> if you are going to engage an enemy far away from your landmass > (or project power for that matter)

Here's an idea: How about _not_ engaging far away from your landmass and not "projecting power"? The rest of the world has had quite enough of your projections.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Bad idea. I want the US to continue projecting power because the alternative is worse.

[einpoklum]

Somehow, all those people whose countries get bombed, embargoed, invaded, or have their governments switched by the US - generally seem to fail to agree with you.

[Zigurd]

Oddly and apparently surprisingly, it is possible for the US to be misguided and heavy handed in some cases, like overthrowing South American governments not willing to be exploited, while also, for example, contributing to the relatively peaceful and democracy-expanding end of the Cold War.

[FinnKuhn]

I very much disagree with you here. I am from Germany and the majority of people agree that the allied invasion and win by the allies was good to restore our democracy after the 2nd world war.

[yurikoif]

Just don’t blame the us or anyone when there’s another Rwanda massacre and nobody intervenes

[justin66]

"The rest of the world" is famous for sharing one single opinion on things.

[twelve40]

both can be true! if a huge ship can be destroyed by a $100k drone boat, we still have a problem

[echelon]

“Infantry wins battles, logistics wins wars”

That said, for smaller engagements when you have a forward operating base, you can air drop a massive amount of tonnage on a dime with C-5s. And if we ever turn Starship into an orbital equipment delivery system, we'll be able to open new salients quickly.

[pixl97]

Planes are tiny.

The largest plane can carry 225 or so tons.

The largest ship can carry 225,000 tons or so.

That is 3 orders of magnitude different.

[aylmao]

Not as much as ships and not nearly efficiently enough to fight a war